Paul,
no,they missed each other but geez it was a close (near) call.
I totally agree with you on the definition supplied - it beats me how one can have an accidental collision that is narrowly avoided. Maybe the word "potential" in lieu of "accidental" is more appropriate. I might be wrong [and feel free to tell me], a deliberate act to collide with some~thing/one could result in a near miss also.
BOZO 31.12.04
HNY

Stopper questions like this bemuse me. It prompts me to again assert---- WORDS HAVE NO MEANING, only people do. Nouns from verbs can only have a refined definition judgmentally. One mans "near miss" is another's MILE.
2k4dec30fri17:55,lneil

Paul, No, I wouldn’t agree that a near miss is a hit. And I don’t have a problem with ‘near miss.’ ‘Near’ is just an adjective describing how close the miss was (just as ‘near future’ informs us that an event is not far off, and certainly not in the ‘far future). If one misses a target (date, goal, etc.) it seems like it is informative to distinguish between a miss that was close and one that was off by a mile, and that’s maybe why the expression is so widely used and generally accepted. Of course, one could also describe a ‘near miss’ as a ‘near collision’ or in other contexts a ‘near success.’ But since when do we want to restrict our way of saying things to one, when we can say it in two (or three, or . . . .)? (<:)
_______________________________

NEAR MISS noun: 1) A narrowly avoided collision involving two or more aircraft, ships, boats, or motor vehicles. 2) A shot that is extremely close to but not directly on target – just misses a target. 3) Something that fails by a very narrow margin: “Her campaign for the Senate was a near miss.”

I think I follow. If a near miss is a near hit, then a miss is as good as a hit. It follows then that if I narrowly avoid a collision, I had a near miss, and if I narrowly avoid a near miss, I collided.